In your grudging Friday media column: Jill Abramson is complacent, the WaPo and the Daily Mail bitch at one another, investigative reporters take a hit, job changes at Conde Nast, and Reuters is ambitious.

New NYT editor Jill Abramson has one of the most important—and stressful—jobs in all the media. What does she worry about? "I don't [worry]," she told Jon Friedman at a gathering of media reporters to which we were not invited. "The last thing I do every night is to take my dog for a long walk, of, say, 45 minutes. What is there to worry about when New York City is so gorgeous?" Vengeful shunned media reporters, for starters.

This email exchange between a Washington Post reporter and a Daily Mail employee determined to rewrite a Washington Post story tells you everything you need to know about the Washington Post and the Daily Mail. Including "why the Daily Mail is far more profitable."

The federal government has decided to pull an online database of doctors' malpractice cases, The National Practitioner Data Bank, offline, which has pissed off several journalism groups, because investigative reporters use the database to research stories. The government responded, "Investigative reporters make us look bad, duh."

Job changes and shit at Conde Nast, losers! Brides magazine could be getting a new publisher and a new editor, according to Amy Wicks, and there may be changes coming at Lucky magazine as well. Don't you wish you worked at Conde Nast, so this sort of news would concern you somehow? I bet they have the softest bathroom tissue of any major magazine publisher.

Reuters, which has hired every high profile journalist or journalism-related pundit who got a new job in the past year, has plans to become bigger and more influential than Bloomberg News. "This promises more fireworks than Tyson-Holyfield!" we'd say, rubbing our hands together, if we were into that sort of thing.